Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   May 17, 2013 - 5:34 PM   
 By:   Charles Thaxton   (Member)

I just saw it in 3D....the altitude shots gave me anxiety attack (for real). My palms were sweating and I damned near broke the chair's arms off. smile The film is complete eye candy, maybe too much so. I laughed out loud when the TV theme came up at the credits. I *guess* I enjoyed it but can't discuss what bothered me without spoilers.

 
 Posted:   May 19, 2013 - 7:25 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

I assume the girl in knickers and bra is for THE FANBOYS!!!! who don't get to see things like that normally! That J J, what a card!!! wink

This is the FSM comment of the year! Thank you so much!

 
 Posted:   May 19, 2013 - 7:27 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

I'm copying-and-pasting (with slight alteration) my comments from a thread on the "Score Discussion" side of the boards in hopes to continue that conversation here...

Would any fans of the film be able to illustrate their thoughts on the plot and characterizations via spoiler text? I've seen the movie last night and was simply not engaged on any level of drama or tension throughout the whole thing. I found the actions of the protagonists to be rote and telegraphed early on. It all seemed thoughtless to me. I'm not looking to start a dispute or anything, I just want some incite from those who were thrilled with this movie.

I must admit, I've only found myself recently watching TOS via Netflix streaming and I'm loving every minute of it. I can see why the television series never appealed to me as a kid (although I have fond memories of TNG and its movies as a youngster) but I am greatly loving it as an adult. Perhaps my mistake was re-watching the first three TOS films before watching Into Darkness. All three of those are filled with pathos and drama which engaged these wonderful characters on multiple levels, especially their relationships by the time Wrath of Khan came about. That said, I'm not as familiar with these characters as yourself or some of the other Trek fans that are found on this message board. But to me, Abrams and company's interpretation of these characters seems like low brow fan fiction, especially the romantic relationship between Uhura and Spock (and double-so as depicted in Into Darkness), and Kirk's general boorishness now through two films of "character development."

Perhaps I'm just becoming this jaded movie fan but I have noticed that increasingly in JJ Abrams films there are absolutely no stakes because characters are magically revived from the dead (in both Mission: Impossible 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness) or experience no repercussions within the plot or story. Clearly I am in a minority because this film has earned decent (though not thrilling) critical accolades and has made a nice box office return (certainly more than any film I have made), but if audiences keep accepting these commitee-written excuses for screenplays then Hollywood is going to keep on churning out loud and boring feature films for franchises that could possibly attempt something different and more grand.

 
 
 Posted:   May 20, 2013 - 6:44 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

I'm copying-and-pasting (with slight alteration) my comments from a thread on the "Score Discussion" side of the boards in hopes to continue that conversation here...

Would any fans of the film be able to illustrate their thoughts on the plot and characterizations via spoiler text? I've seen the movie last night and was simply not engaged on any level of drama or tension throughout the whole thing. I found the actions of the protagonists to be rote and telegraphed early on. It all seemed thoughtless to me. I'm not looking to start a dispute or anything, I just want some incite from those who were thrilled with this movie.

I must admit, I've only found myself recently watching TOS via Netflix streaming and I'm loving every minute of it. I can see why the television series never appealed to me as a kid (although I have fond memories of TNG and its movies as a youngster) but I am greatly loving it as an adult. Perhaps my mistake was re-watching the first three TOS films before watching Into Darkness. All three of those are filled with pathos and drama which engaged these wonderful characters on multiple levels, especially their relationships by the time Wrath of Khan came about. That said, I'm not as familiar with these characters as yourself or some of the other Trek fans that are found on this message board. But to me, Abrams and company's interpretation of these characters seems like low brow fan fiction, especially the romantic relationship between Uhura and Spock (and double-so as depicted in Into Darkness), and Kirk's general boorishness now through two films of "character development."

Perhaps I'm just becoming this jaded movie fan but I have noticed that increasingly in JJ Abrams films there are absolutely no stakes because characters are magically revived from the dead (in both Mission: Impossible 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness) or experience no repercussions within the plot or story. Clearly I am in a minority because this film has earned decent (though not thrilling) critical accolades and has made a nice box office return (certainly more than any film I have made), but if audiences keep accepting these commitee-written excuses for screenplays then Hollywood is going to keep on churning out loud and boring feature films for franchises that could possibly attempt something different and more grand.



I think there are dramatic issues with it, that do not appear obvious. Ie on paper, the thing hits the right points, but by the time SPOILER ALERT -- KHAN runs his ship into SF a bit of dramatic/action fatigue sets in. By the time they have the fight on top of the craft in the air about the streets - again - fatigue.

 
 Posted:   May 20, 2013 - 7:23 PM   
 By:   Dyfrynt   (Member)

For the most part I enjoyed this film much more than I thought I would. One of my big problems is that Benedict Cumberbatch is no Ricardo Montalban. I never believe him as the character.

 
 Posted:   May 20, 2013 - 7:34 PM   
 By:   Michaelware   (Member)

I found The direction and pacing to be spot on. Abrams is in the classic style of filmmaking and that may be a liability now. The writers never pander to preconceptions. Possibly their best strength is keeping to a positive approach instead of nihilism, even though hip negativity is the mainstream now. I dunno, I just watch the things. One of the things I liked about it is that the crew has to learn to communicate and break the ego blocks. In the process of letting go of having to always be right, Kirk and. Spock become irreplaceable to each other. Strengthening of bonds and turning sparks into belief in each other, it's all handled very engagingly. Overcoming ego, overcoming the need for vengeance, all that seems very much the trek ethos. Maybe that is why it won't be perceived as successful, if that's how people want it to go down.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 6:01 AM   
 By:   Scott M (Oldsmith)   (Member)


well, there is a reason it was the most successful of all the TREK films - IT'S LIKE THE SERIES!
ST was never conceived as an action/adventure show - though there are plenty of space battles -
it's an IDEAS show.

brm


Quite the contrary, original Star Trek was very much an action adventure show. That's what attracted me to it as a 4 year old in 1971. The pilot that sold the series was bracketed by physical action. It ended on a fist fight, for Zod's sake, but there were ideas in there. You can absolutely have an action adventure series be smart and Star Trek was that. The majority of the episodes were adventure pieces, which is what sets it apart from the talk-fest of TNG. Not every episode had a moral lesson either, some were just straightforward adventures. Still more adult than Lost in Space, but not always with a message.

The Voyage Home may have been the most box office successful, but of the original series movies, the film that is roundly accepted as the best of the bunch is Wrath of Khan.....which is a classic action adventure film. And also "just like the series."

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 6:01 AM   
 By:   Scott M (Oldsmith)   (Member)

Frack, duplicate post.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 10:01 AM   
 By:   Accidental Genius   (Member)

one thing JJ knocked out of the park... PETER WELLER!

The inclusion of Weller as a cast member, yes. The writing, no. And for all that is holy, could we please stop with the Admiral-runs-amok scenarios in these movies. Man, Starfleet must be the worst place to serve with all these admirals seeking revenge and satiating their avarice.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 10:02 AM   
 By:   Accidental Genius   (Member)

For the most part I enjoyed this film much more than I thought I would. One of my big problems is that Benedict Cumberbatch is no Ricardo Montalban. I never believe him as the character.

Agreed. Not for a second. An angry man hell-bent on revenge? Absolutely. But, oh wait, we had that in the last movie, too. Grrrrrr.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 10:04 AM   
 By:   Accidental Genius   (Member)

I assume the girl in knickers and bra is for THE FANBOYS!!!! who don't get to see things like that normally! That J J, what a card!!! wink

This is the FSM comment of the year! Thank you so much!


As already pointed out previously, she's absolutely gorgeous but the scene was completely useless. And so was she. Definitely not the Carol Marcus we've come to know, timeline screwups or not.

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 11:11 AM   
 By:   Joe E.   (Member)

For the most part I enjoyed this film much more than I thought I would. One of my big problems is that Benedict Cumberbatch is no Ricardo Montalban. I never believe him as the character.

Agreed. Not for a second. An angry man hell-bent on revenge? Absolutely. But, oh wait, we had that in the last movie, too. Grrrrrr.


And the one before that, for that matter (Star Trek: Nemesis). Somehow, the previous Trek 'administrations' miraculously found ways to make seven non--revenge-centered movies in a row, between just two out of ten that used it as their central ideas (to say nothing of the several hundred TV episodes made in the same timeframe that mostly found other things to be about). Then the franchise got turned over to J. J., and he immediately went and gave us another revenge melodrama right after the previous one, and then after that he (now) gives us a movie that directly hearkens back to the first revenge movie in the series.

(In fairness, this newest movie isn't so much about new Khan's revenge, exactly, but still.)

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 11:22 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)

For the most part I enjoyed this film much more than I thought I would. One of my big problems is that Benedict Cumberbatch is no Ricardo Montalban. I never believe him as the character.

Agreed. Not for a second. An angry man hell-bent on revenge? Absolutely. But, oh wait, we had that in the last movie, too. Grrrrrr.


And the one before that, for that matter (Star Trek: Nemesis). Somehow, the previous Trek 'administrations' miraculously found ways to make seven non--revenge-centered movies in a row, between just two out of ten that used it as their central ideas (to say nothing of the several hundred TV episodes made in the same timeframe that mostly found other things to be about). Then the franchise got turned over to J. J., and he immediately went and gave us another revenge melodrama right after the previous one, and then after that he (now) gives us a movie that directly hearkens back to the first revenge movie in the series.

(In fairness, this newest movie isn't so much about new Khan's revenge, exactly, but still.)


Yes. Where has the EXPLORATION part of this gone. I mean, it is really gone. When was the last exploration theme? Maybe Insurrection? Generations? Then back to Star Trek V. Everything else has been political/combat earth related.

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 11:25 AM   
 By:   Dyfrynt   (Member)

Here's a curiosity. I was looking over the list of actors for the movie and came across Chris Hemsworth (aka Thor) as George Kirk. Huh? I'm sure I would have remembered seeing that and I know I did not! Something that ended up on the cutting room floor, apparently?

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 11:28 AM   
 By:   Dyfrynt   (Member)

Good Gawds! Just looked up the 2009 movie and Hemsworth DID play George Kirk in the first movie. So clean cut and dressed up I never recognized it was the same actor!!!!!

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 1:03 PM   
 By:   Sigerson Holmes   (Member)



"Well, if I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the mornin' . . ."

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 1:41 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

"Well, if I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the mornin' . . ."


big grin

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 3:04 PM   
 By:   Dyfrynt   (Member)

Another little plot point. In the second film we finally learn how a ship as huge as this Enterprise can go from being built on the ground to getting into space. In the second movie the ship is not only on the ground, it is under the water.

It simply levitates up and flies away. Who'da thunk!

 
 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 3:07 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

Nibiru.
LOL

 
 Posted:   May 21, 2013 - 3:28 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

Good Gawds! Just looked up the 2009 movie and Hemsworth DID play George Kirk in the first movie. So clean cut and dressed up I never recognized it was the same actor!!!!!

Captain of the USS Kelvin . . . for fifteen minutes, give or take. George's solution for the Kobayashi Maru Scenario does not go down too well with son - James T. Which begs the question - how would James T. have done it?

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2014 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.